Interference Rule on Slide into Catcher

[bmakj]

did the catcher do anything at all against the rules (not was it the bet footwork, was it legal)? no

was the runners slide legal (remember, retired 2-3 strides before slide, moved deliberately towards catcher, and tried to alter perception of where slide occured with the rollover onto the plate, and obligation of runner to avoid interfering with defense once retired and able to do so)? no runner had no right to be "getting in the way" whatsoever, so it was not benign in any way. in fact their obligation is the opposite.

once you have no right to be taking an action (ie getting in the way), and you do so anyway, AND there is good chance that action harms another player, that is intent to injure. or should the guy doing 60 on a residential street just get a speeding ticket when they plow over a kid on a bike who was in middle of the street where they shouldn't have been? he didnt intend to hit the kid, he just was in a hurry.

 

[Westwind]

So next time I coach I’m going to have my runner at first slide into the pitcher in front of the rubber. She will be stealing second. I’ll just tell her to make sure to slide legally.

Buddy Ryan used to say “We gonna open up a new can of Quarterback”. Same here.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Ed, I LOVE discussions like this, so please do not think I am taking any personal approach to this. I find very few people that I can have this level of intellectual and philosophical debates over umpiring with! Thank you for humoring me, man!

I hope people don't crosseyed over this post ...

Let me start with this, because I am going to employ (properly, I hope) a lot of logic here.
All dogs are animals. Not all animals are dogs.
All poodles are dogs. Not all dogs are poodles.
All poodles are animals.

You are correct that the definition does not include the penalty, NO definitions include the penalty. While I agree that both offense and defense can commit malicious contact (an overly aggressive tag-out, for instance), these are actions which should be covered under unsporting conduct.

This last concept, unsporting conduct vs. malicious contact, in interesting. Why do we even have the malicious contact definition and rule? Isn't malicious contact just another name for unsporting conduct? Malicious contact rules originated on the baseball side of things as a way to emphasize the heinousness of 'crashing' the defensive player (primarily the catcher). It was an attempt to get away from the culture of Bench/Fosse type collisions that were called 'just hard-nosed play'.

So, since I can justify ejecting a player for unsporting conduct, a overly aggressive tag, an illegal slide with spikes intentionally high and slashing, a rolling body slide., I will save 'malicious contact' for plays where the runner remains on her feet, lowers a shoulder or raises her arms, and does nothing to give herself up.

Malicious contact is a specific subset of unsporting conduct. ALL malicious contact is unsporting conduct. Not all unsporting conduct is malicious contact.

Malicious contact has a specific penalty. That penalty does not apply to all unsporting conduct.

The definition of malicious contact does not include the penalty of "the runner is out" because malicious contact can occur from ANY player. The penalty for malicious contact neither defines nor adds to the definition of malicious contact.

I feel as if you are stuck on the line in the penalty about remaining on her feet. That is NOT a requirement for malicious contact. (IMO, this is a common problem in many rule books and with may rule interpretations. Language is used in an ancillary spot to provide an example, and then some interpreters want to add it into the rule itself.)

I think part of the discussion from the OP is "Are we ejecting the runner" The reason for ejecting is secondary, as long as it is based on rule.
Not all contact in illegal contact, an attempt to break up a DP in and of itself is not illegal, as long as the means one uses are legal. In this case, since the slide, by rule in NFHS currently, was within arm's reach of the plate, you cannot use that as our reason for calling interference. Was the slide legal in all other respects?

2.52.1 Legal Slide-A legal slide may be either feet first or head first. If a runner slides feet first, at least one leg and a buttock shall be on the ground. If a runner slides, the runner shall be within reach of the base with either hand or a foot when the slide is completed.

I agree the act of breaking up a double play with a legal means is not illegal. I agree that the slide appears to be legal within NFHS rules. However, there is more there than just that. The runner clearly (or not so clearly) was targeting the catcher. That is illegal, even if done under legal pretense. Even if there is not a spot in the book that explicitly states that those specific actions are legal/illegal, one can easily see, as @marriard pointed out, the direction that the governing bodies are taking with the game. Player safety is priority #1.

I really hate to bring in the baseball terminology (as we have all pointed out, it is not in the softball rule), but in this case the reason for the terminology is within the expectation the governing body has for this game. The runner did not slide directly into the base, which in and of itself is NOT illegal in softball. If softball had that rule, I think we can agree this is pretty clear cut. However, sans that language, we need to look at all the elements of the bigger picture.

Was the slide legal? Probably.

Was the slide "sporting"? She can try to break up a double play at risk of being called for causing interference. She has NO reasonable justification for manipulating her base path to allow her to target the catcher though.

Was the slide malicious? It is possible she only intended to break up the double play (legal), but the level of aggression used was excessive IMO. (Again, I can see how it would have been judged the other way in real time.)

I would argue the buttock was not on the ground at the time of contact with the C. The slide was late and not a legal slide when it come to judging the action at the plate. The fact that the player did not slide directly to the plate DOES NOT make this an illegal slide.

Let's go on, was the slide illegal?

When it comes to "The Buttock Criteria" (great John Grisham novel, by the way), look at the entire slide, not the moment. That clause (IMO) is intended to prevent a runner from essentially jumping into the fielder and delivering a low drop kick, not to gauge the moment in time when a slide occurs.

I still think the slide fits the definition of a legal slide, as the runner was in the process of it becoming a legal slide. Her butt doesn't just appear on the ground instantaneously.

Hrmmm, let's look a (e).....the runner tries to injure the fielder. Why is that in the definition of an illegal slide? Wouldn't malicious contact cover this? Unless, malicious contact was intended to prevent 'crashing' the player. This is mostly an academic review of the rules, I have an out and an ejection regardless of why you rule that way, but use the best justification for your action. Save malicious contact for 'crashing' the defensive player and use the other rules for things that warrant ejection but are not.

Again, we (our at least I) agree with you the slide is legal. That does not make the play legal though. You absolutely can "crash into" a player while sliding, even while sliding legally (timing could be considered a factor).

"Officer, I had my brakes on!" But your car kept going and you ran over the pedestrian anyway.

 

[radness]

did the catcher do anything at all against the rules (not was it the bet footwork, was it legal)? no

was the runners slide legal (remember, retired 2-3 strides before slide, moved deliberately towards catcher, and tried to alter perception of where slide occured with the rollover onto the plate, and obligation of runner to avoid interfering with defense once retired and able to do so)? no runner had no right to be "getting in the way" whatsoever, so it was not benign in any way. in fact their obligation is the opposite.

once you have no right to be taking an action (ie getting in the way), and you do so anyway, AND there is good chance that action harms another player, that is intent to injure. or should the guy doing 60 on a residential street just get a speeding ticket when they plow over a kid on a bike who was in middle of the street where they shouldn't have been? he didnt intend to hit the kid, he just was in a hurry.

Kudos to your effort addressing your perspective!

To me this is not about trying to get people to agree one way or another, rather recognize there are different perspectives AND things to consider there in.
*Even through umpires eyes.

 

[EdLovrich]

@The Man In Blue I am NOT saying the slide is legal. I have been saying all along that the slide is illegal, the reason it is illegal is germane to the discussion, however. The slide is NOT illegal because of where the player slid (left or right of the plate, towards or away from the C). The slide is illegal for either or both of two reasons. one of which is open to interpretation the other is judgment. When does the buttock need to be down for a slide to be legal, I will grant that this might be shaky ground and not one that an umpire can clearly see in live time. The second, runner tries to injure the fielder. This is pure judgment, and I think in this case it is applicable, not many are arguing against the intentions of the runner, just whether or not she had responsibility to avoid any contact.

My argument with applying malicious contact in a slide revolves around this very clause in the illegal slide definition. If it is already covered by a rule, why create language in a new rule to cover the same thing? So, malicious contact was created to cover the instances when a runner was not sliding, ie she remained on her feet. There were already rules to cover a slide with an attempt to injure. The was a need to emphasize that 'crashing' or 'trucking' a fielder was not appropriate action. I know some are saying it is possible to crash or truck during a slide, but I think that is a bit disingenuous. When we think of crashing or tricking, we immediately think of the Rose/Fosse type train wreck. THAT is the action malicious contact was meant to prevent. Can it apply to a fielder's action? Yes, by rule it can in NFHS (Perhaps also NCAA? not sure). You are correct, malicious contact is a specific subset of unsporting behavior. Taunting, heckling, profanity, defacing the ball, altering a bat are all unsporting behavior. All will get you a fast trip to the showers, sometimes with warning, but never required. Fighting is also unsporting behavior and will get you ejected. When you eject someone for fighting, are you ejecting them for malicious contact? Would it even occur to you to use MC as the justification for the ejection? Probably not, there is already a rule in place that covers it with much less discussion. Who is to say whether the punch or grapple was excessive force? I hate the excessive force part of the definition for that very reason, what is excessive in this sort of situation? The term as defined opens up this sort of rabbit hole we are in.

 

[black17]

did the catcher do anything at all against the rules (not was it the bet footwork, was it legal)? no

was the runners slide legal (remember, retired 2-3 strides before slide, moved deliberately towards catcher, and tried to alter perception of where slide occured with the rollover onto the plate, and obligation of runner to avoid interfering with defense once retired and able to do so)? no runner had no right to be "getting in the way" whatsoever, so it was not benign in any way. in fact their obligation is the opposite.

once you have no right to be taking an action (ie getting in the way), and you do so anyway, AND there is good chance that action harms another player, that is intent to injure. or should the guy doing 60 on a residential street just get a speeding ticket when they plow over a kid on a bike who was in middle of the street where they shouldn't have been? he didnt intend to hit the kid, he just was in a hurry.

All I am saying is I can accept the justification for the call as well as a couple other possible outcomes. Forget the strictest interpretation of the rules, because malicious intent is subjective. To me, the actions of both players contributed to the outcome which muddies the subjective measure of 'malicious intent'. Again, its not just intent, but malicious intent.

Yep I agree that the resulting impact was not good, but my DD leveled a SS once a few years back when she ran behind a SS making a play and on the last short-hop, the ball took off, stayed low, and ate the SS lunch. Again, with my DD running BEHIND the SS, the SS step back with her right foot just as my DD was running behind. DD ran straight into her back at full speed. Looked like a deer v. semi collision resulting in a hyperextended elbow and a right side of the face looking like she got dragged down the highway for the SS.

Massive collision resulting in injuries. Accident by any account. But definitely not malicious by either party.

 

[EdLovrich]

@bmakj I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I think you need to be careful about the analogies you are drawing. And I DO love a good analogy.
"once you have no right to be taking an action (ie getting in the way), and you do so anyway, AND there is good chance that action harms another player, that is intent to injure. "

While such a situation might show depraved indifference and it is most likely still be a crime, I am not sure you can impart intent. Knowing that I am taking this further astray, (sorry RADCatcher), take this analogy. Someone fires a weapon down Main Street in the middle of the day, killing a bystander. Was the act illegal? Yes. Was there a good chance someone would get hurt? Yes. Was there intent? No. And intent makes a huge difference. The difference between manslaughter and homicide.

 

[EdLovrich]

All I am saying is I can accept the justification for the call as well as a couple other possible outcomes. Forget the strictest interpretation of the rules, because malicious intent is subjective. To me, the actions of both players contributed to the outcome which muddies the subjective measure of 'malicious intent'. Again, its not just intent, but malicious intent.

Yep I agree that the resulting impact was not good, but my DD leveled a SS once a few years back when she ran behind a SS making a play and on the last short-hop, the ball took off, stayed low, and ate the SS lunch. Again, with my DD running BEHIND the SS, the SS step back with her right foot just as my DD was running behind. DD ran straight into her back at full speed. Looked like a deer v. semi collision resulting in a hyperextended elbow and a right side of the face looking like she got dragged down the highway for the SS.

Massive collision resulting in injuries. Accident by any account. But definitely not malicious by either party.

And what do you think the call should have been? Nothing, interference or obstruction?

 

[bmakj]

@bmakj I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television, but I think you need to be careful about the analogies you are drawing. And I DO love a good analogy.
"once you have no right to be taking an action (ie getting in the way), and you do so anyway, AND there is good chance that action harms another player, that is intent to injure. "

While such a situation might show depraved indifference and it is most likely still be a crime, I am not sure you can impart intent. Knowing that I am taking this further astray, (sorry RADCatcher), take this analogy. Someone fires a weapon down Main Street in the middle of the day, killing a bystander. Was the act illegal? Yes. Was there a good chance someone would get hurt? Yes. Was there intent? No. And intent makes a huge difference. The difference between manslaughter and homicide.

did she alter course to make certain there was contact? because the runner in this case clearly did. makes all the difference. no matter how that catcher moved, that runner was trying to take them out. might not be able to be seen RT, but no doubt if you watch and pause at strategic points.

 

[black17]

And what do you think the call should have been? Nothing, interference or obstruction?

If you are referring to the play in the video, I covered that in comment #70.